However we held ourselves very well, we didnt react to their actions with violence or yelling back, we simply laughed at em. This is going to be the first of many actions guys, so would be great to see more of us Aussies involved!!

A fine job you did too.

It is important to reiterate for the supportors of NatAlt, the detractors of NatAlt, and to the State and Federal Police: The actions, mandate and policy we have seen from Nationalist Alternative is the legal right to non violent protest.

There is no right to political communication but State and Federal Parliaments are not able to legislate to unreasonably restrict it.
Each member of the Australian community has an interest in disseminating and receiving information, opinions and arguments concerning government and political matters that affect the people of Australia.
That interest gives rise to a defence of qualified privilege for such communication against defamation, although such a defence may be defeated if the publication is unreasonable or actuated by malice.

The High Court of Australia first recognised an implied guarantee of communication on political matters in the Constitution in the early 1990s (Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106 and Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1). With regard to defamation, it has been established that the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution covers discussion of the conduct, policies or fitness for office of government members, political parties, public bodies, public officers and those seeking public office. In Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (1994) 182 CLR 104 at 140 it was held by the majority that:

There is implied in the Commonwealth Constitution a freedom to publish material:
(a) discussing government and political matters;
(b) of an concerning members of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia which relates to the performance of their duties as members of the Parliament or parliamentary committees; and
(c) in relation to the suitability of persons for office as members of the Parliament.

Great to see Nationalist Alternative doing legal, sensible and peaceful protests!

It would be extremely interesting to know if the violent Communists/Trotskyites got the State Authorities knocking on their doors? Or was it just the Nationalists? Such double-standards!

Let the State Authorities know if they are going to "threaten" genuine Australian Nationalists who are merely acting in a legal and sensible and peaceful manner that official complaints will be made against them and the Media will be told how they are harassing people just for merely expressing their right to freedom of speech. We love our country and our people and wish to protect Australia.

I think the picture below is quite fitting in regards to what happens to anybody who dares to have an opinion that doesn't follow the authoritarian multiculturalist status-quo!

I highly enjoyed reading the article by James Smith which is called Nationalist Alternative @ the Internet Censorship Rally, Perth, WA.

I particularly liked this quote used below in the article...

Quote:

The state was of course happy to allow this violence to occur, due to the already mentioned “useful idiots” concept. It is often the case the police intervene only when nationalists rightfully defend themselves. Such is the straitjacked situation of the average decent policeman who more often than not, privately acknowledge their support for uThe police or at least their political masters are clearly more interested in ‘defending the peace’, rather than ‘defending free speech’ and take the easy option of taking action against the few victims, rather than against the more numerous (for now) violent perpertrators.

Embarrassingly for the Socialist Alliance, during this banner scuffle the speaker on the stage looked up and noted

“it looks like there is some censorship occurring right before our eyes”

So much for the right to freedom of speech and against censorship eh? The Communists/Trotskyites turned the rally into a complete and utter farce with their violent, dogmatic stupidity.

I think Nationalist Alternative activists can truly hold their heads high and be proud of their achievements so far, as from an outsider's perspective, I'm certain that the Communists/Trotskyites are seen as being those who wish to censor people and stop freedom of speech. The hypocrisy from the Communists/Trotskyites is overwhelmingly blatant and disgusting as can be seen in the video!

Will the Nationalist Alternative be giving the footage and making a complaint to the WA police to have this profane woman, who has assaulted someone after advocated the murder of people in public during the assault, to be arrested and charged accordingly?

or, will the Nationalist Alternative allow this person to get away with it?

An assault is the direct (and immediate/confrontational) infliction of force, injury or violence upon a person or persons or the direct (and immediate/confrontational) threat of force, injury or violence where there is an apprehension that the threat could be enacted. An Aggravated Assault as recorded by the WA Police is an assault that involves the aggravating circumstances of causing serious bodily injury. The Australian Standard Offence Classification also includes the following circumstances of aggravation:

carried out in company;

carried out using a weapon;

carried out with the intent of preventing apprehension or committing a crime; or

committed with the intent to recklessly endanger life or cause injury.

Non-Aggravated Assault

An assault not involving any of the aggravating circumstances as defined in Aggravated Assault. This category of offence also includes acts involving the indirect and non-confrontational infliction of harm, injury or violence upon a person such as administering drugs/poison or stupefying. For reporting purposes, non-aggravated assault incorporates assault (including a relatively small number of aggravated assaults) committed against a WA Police Officer acting in the execution of their duty.

I think that this woman is clearly falling into the first definition at least.

Mate, I see where you're coming from, but really whats the point? The police might give her a warning and they'll just let her off on provocation. The bloke who was headbutted is ok, she got the camera mainly. The important thing is that we did everything legally, quite within our rights, and made the left-wingers look bloody stupid and hypocritical. Mission accomplished I'd say!

Mate, I see where you're coming from, but really whats the point? The police might give her a warning and they'll just let her off on provocation. The bloke who was headbutted is ok, she got the camera mainly. The important thing is that we did everything legally, quite within our rights, and made the left-wingers look bloody stupid and hypocritical. Mission accomplished I'd say!

The fact of the matter is this woman has commited a crime. She would have each and everyone of you dead if she had her way, and said so too.

The same woman and her cohorts in the footage may have also been the ones who filed complaints against you/others for the "SS" to turn up.

If the person who was assaulted files a complaint with the local police, the police are obligated to follow it up. If these same people have assaulted others because of political belief, it is persecution and vilification, which is also criminal in this country, and that my friends entitles them into the same "SS" persecution realm as you have been subjected too.

It does not matter whether the local police agree with WN or not, if the law was broken, it is their job to police the law and issue arrests of those who break the law so they will be sent in front of a court of law for trial.

If the police can clearly see there was a crime commited, they will charge accordingly. In this case, Assault. They will either charge or they will not charge not based on the facts, but they will have to follow it up if a complaint is made.

Clearly in this case a woman has assaulted someone because of their political beliefs.

The law is the law. If it were me.....I would be making the complaint first light tomorrow.......just in time for the weekend.

Mate, I see where you're coming from, but really whats the point? The police might give her a warning and they'll just let her off on provocation. The bloke who was headbutted is ok, she got the camera mainly. The important thing is that we did everything legally, quite within our rights, and made the left-wingers look bloody stupid and hypocritical. Mission accomplished I'd say!

I don't agree. I fully support the thing, of course, but there comes a time where you stand your ground...and looking easy to run off isn't a thing to do. I mean, NA had every right to unfurl their banner on the day. The fact that this tow truck of a woman could charge up snorting and grunting and with all the charm of a feral pig with a bowel disorder rip it down and not cop a self-defensive nut back doesn't make them look "bloody stupid" but just more energetic and passionate. The reverse was, in peeling away, NA looked sheepish; not as willing to enforce their views.
No, I wasn't there, and it was only one view, but that vid is the only perspective on offer. Perhaps NA should now take their own VIDS as seriously, and make it a serious component of any future venture.

On another note, they are not only combatting the ungodly foreign hordes, but popular opinion as well. Perhaps the tactics of considering proximity to these idiots might be worth considering also. Don't let them play you, but play them. Take them somewhere they can't drive you from, if their numbers are such.